| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
15 Mar 2007 : Column 828
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, if there were to be an erosion of sovereignty, we would of course take it seriously. However, because the globe has changed, we have had to pool our efforts in order to face up to some global challenges. Europe together has made a much better fist of it than each of us would have done on our own.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords—
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): My Lords, we are well into the 23rd minute. Time is up on this Question.
Iraq: Security
11.29 am
Lord Dykes asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What is their assessment of the results of the Baghdad security conference held in the Green Zone of Baghdad on 10 March.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Triesman): My Lords, the latest Iraq neighbours’ meeting took place in Baghdad on 10 March. The meeting reached agreement that there should be a follow-on ministerial event and that working groups would be established to look at refugees, fuel imports and security co-operation between Iraq and her neighbours. We regard this as a positive result. All those around the table were clear in their emphasis on the support for the Government of Iraq and for the Iraqi people in their efforts to confront terrorism and sectarian violence.
Lord Dykes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and note that the involvement for the first time of Iran and Syria seems to have been received on all sides as an encouraging new development. Does he agree that the twin scourges in Iraq remain the violence of the faction bombers and militants and the disastrously incompetent American occupation? More and more ordinary Iraqi citizens, except some of the Ministers in the green zone, see an early US withdrawal as a catalyst for all the different Iraqi groups to begin painfully but positively to negotiate their own sovereign and durable peace.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I think that everybody in the alliance would like to get to the point where they believe that security could be achieved at a level where it was no longer necessary for them to be there. That would, no doubt, be a moment welcomed by the Iraqi people; but those inflicting the bombings, deaths and multiple tragedies on the Iraqi people are terrorists who have chosen to do so. They will have to be resisted by the international movement; otherwise, we would allow internal collapse and the takeover of that country from a democratic Government by a group of insurgents.
15 Mar 2007 : Column 829
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, will the Minister comment on a growing number of reports that the increased American troop levels in Baghdad are having some effect on its security? It may have improved slightly, although one realises the dangers of commenting on this when something terrible happens. The surge philosophy may not be quite as bankrupt as some feared. What role have Her Majesty’s Government played in the recent Baghdad security conference—I am not sure what level of representation we had—and what role are we likely to play in the proposals for the meeting on 28 and 29 March, led by Saudi Arabia, for reactivating the Arab peace initiative? Generally, where do we stand as a nation in all these moves to bring the neighbouring countries together to resolve the Iraq situation? The impression grows that British influence in these areas has severely declined. Could the Minister refute that worrying claim?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, it is too early to know whether the surge has succeeded, but I am encouraged by the early indications. I think we will have to review that. We were pleased to participate in the meeting as invitees, and we have expressed our support for Iraq’s sovereignty, national unity and territorial integrity. We hope to take part in the expert working groups that will work through to the meetings that the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, mentioned. We have a good deal of expertise to offer, and it is helpful to be able to do it with Syria and Iran now taking part in the discussions.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, would my noble friend convey to President Talabani the good wishes of this House for a very early recovery from his illness, particularly as he is critically important in resolving the future problems in Iraq?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, that is a most welcome suggestion, and I believe that the whole House would endorse it.
Lord Garden: My Lords, in his Answer the Minister spoke of the working groups, one of which is on border security. As I understand it, it is between the neighbouring states and Iraq. Is there a mechanism for the UK to be represented, given the special concerns we have about transit across the Iran/Iraq border?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, the working groups are just starting. I am not yet 100 per cent clear who they will look to for additional outside support. Recently we had some indications that expertise that we can bring to bear in this area would be regarded as valuable by those in the region who have to face the difficulties, and we stand ready to give that expertise.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the Minister’s reference to refugees mean that some of those who fled from Iraq into Syria and Jordan have been able to return home? If they have not, is something effective being done to prevent them being destitute in those countries?
15 Mar 2007 : Column 830
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I believe that some refugees have returned home to relatively more stable parts of Iraq. No one wants to see destitute people in Syria or Jordan. There is a good deal in our aid programme that may well help. I include in that our aid programme in Iraq, which should help to encourage people to return. We have now carried out £640 million worth of work and reconstruction, which we hope will give greater security to those who need it.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that earlier this week a group of Iraqi parliamentarians visited the Palace of Westminster? They told us that violence appeared to be declining, refugees were returning and there was increasing respect for the organs of state now being set up. Do the Government share that view? How do they view prospects for the near future?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, the evidence appears to us to be flowing in that direction. I am cautious about it, which I hope the House will appreciate. I want to see more of the evidence over a longer period to feel confident about it, but it would be churlish not to welcome the first signs that we are seeing.
Business
11.35 am
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House we will have a Statement on the funding of political parties, repeated after the conclusion of the main debate. It will be delivered by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Business of the House: Standing Order 47
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 47 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Monday 19 March to allow the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill and the Income Tax Bill to be taken through their remaining stages that day.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Business of the House: Debate Today
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord King of Bridgwater set down for today shall be limited to five hours.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
15 Mar 2007 : Column 831
Business of the House: Sub Judice
The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to make a Statement on the sub judice rule in respect of the court martial case R v Payne and others.
Having received a request so to do, I have decided to waive the strict application of the sub judice rule in respect of this case and the issues it raises. However, one of the defendants in the case, Corporal Payne, is awaiting sentence for his conviction of inhumane treatment. Though the remaining six defendants have been acquitted, under the rules of the House the case would normally have remained sub judice until the conclusion of the mandatory post-trial review.
I therefore ask noble Lords not to comment on the charges against and the conviction of Corporal Payne or to discuss the actual circumstances of the incident to which the case relates.
Armed Forces
11.37 am
Lord King of Bridgwater rose to call attention to the state of the Armed Forces of the Crown; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I start by expressing our deep sympathy, sorrow and condolences—I know that in this I carry the whole House with me—to all those who have lost their lives in the recent conflicts. I include in our thoughts those who are very often forgotten—the wounded. The wonders of modern medicine mean that many more people who perhaps would have died in earlier conflicts now survive. However, the triumphs of modern medicine mean that many more people perhaps survive, but often with considerable impairment and disability. In official records, the number of dead is often recorded but the number of those wounded is often ignored. We should recognise that at the start of this debate. I know that I will carry the House with me in paying tribute to the outstanding courage, commitment and skill of our Armed Forces, who have been put—particularly in recent years—in the most difficult circumstances and who have discharged their duties with outstanding courage and determination.
I welcome the quantity and the quality of speakers for this debate. It is no secret that that is some indicator of the concerns that exist in many corners of the House about the state of our Armed Forces at present, about the challenges with which we are facing them and about the issues the Government and we in these Houses need to address.
I do not recall an occasion when there have been more warnings or more comments from senior officers, expressing their concerns about the present situation. This is a difficult issue and many say that it is quite improper for senior, serving officers to speak out. Yet they have a duty to those whom they lead. Provided it is handled responsibly, it is important that the servicemen they lead are aware of their concerns and the problems that they face.
15 Mar 2007 : Column 832
The House will be familiar with recent quotations. The Chief of the General Staff, Sir Richard Dannatt, said that,
but there is a shortage of soldiers to do it. Barely a week ago, the Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Jock Stirrup, gave evidence before the House of Commons Defence Select Committee in which he said categorically that the Armed Forces are “very stretched”. He said that,
worry him most. From the present, stretched situation, he spoke—I doubt any Chief of the Defence Staff has said this before—of the problem of recovery and said:
“We are not going to be in the business of engaging in large-scale, high-end war-fighting operations for some years to come”.
That statement to the Prime Minister, saying his Armed Forces would not be in the business of any substantial defence of our country, is an interesting comment on the problems. He went on to say that,
- “either we need to reduce the overall level of commitment, or we have to think about the overall force structure”.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, who is in his place in the House, talked about the hurt from the lack of adequate government funding.
All these are indicative of the strains on our Armed Forces. It is no secret, and puts great pressures on our troops and challenges on morale. I have no doubt of, and many testimonies have been paid to, the morale of our forces in the face of the enemy and on active service on the ground. It is a different matter when they come home, where they and their families face different challenges. One particular challenge—it is currently grave—is that of getting public support for their activities and operations. The unhappy background to the events of Iraq—problems with inaccurate intelligence, the dossier, the inaccurate information about weapons of mass destruction, the catastrophic absence of planning thereafter—made our forces’ job that much more difficult on the ground.
On Afghanistan, the Chief of the Defence Staff was pretty frank in his evidence to the Defence Select Committee about the difficulty in forming adequate intelligence appraisal in advance of our involvement in Helmand province. The evidence—much warned about at the time—was that the forces we were putting into Helmand province would not be adequate, and that has proved to be the case. On the unfortunately misunderstood comments of John Reid about being happy if not a shot were fired, I cannot remember how much ammunition has now been consumed in the extraordinary gunfight taking place in Afghanistan. The return of his successor from a visit to troops in Afghanistan saying to Mr Des Browne that he did not realise how tough the Taliban would be gave us some cause for concern about how accurate the appreciation was of the challenge.
15 Mar 2007 : Column 833
Out of this has arisen the use of the word “covenant”, which I never recall hearing in my time as Secretary of State for Defence. I think that everyone in this House accepts the principle that lies behind that word, although I do not think that anyone has felt previously the need to use it. It was used by General Mike Jackson in his Dimbleby lecture and has been used frequently since. Obviously, if we ask young men and women to stand in harm’s way to fight for what we believe is just cause, to risk their lives, and to risk injury and incur it as they do, they are entitled to expect the full support and resource of the nation behind them in that undertaking. Sadly and with great regret, out of that comes also talk of the possible formation of unions in the Armed Forces. The feeling has arisen before and is arising again that perhaps there is a need for some other support; that is, they are not fully represented by the support of the country expressed through the Government, the Ministry of Defence and their leadership, and their concerns are not fully reflected.
I was very struck by the speech that the Prime Minister made in Plymouth. I understand that it is part of his farewell tour of a series of lectures entitled “Our Nation’s Future”. He said that of course he understands that there is,
- “some anger at faulty weapons or ammunition; boots and body armour; the right vehicles or the wrong ones; and the problems of transport ... home”,
and problems with single or married accommodation being below standard. He said that,
- “ten years ago none of this would have mattered so much. In times in which men and women are being asked for so much more, they do”.
I profoundly disagree with that statement. It should be the determination of us all to ensure that they have the best possible equipment at all times.
If we take the Prime Minister’s statement further, we never know where the next problem will come from. I was Secretary of State for Defence—my noble friend Lord Hurd is in his place—when we had a totally unexpected event in the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein. The attitude that nothing much is going on so that it does not really matter whether we have everything in place or have a few problems is an appalling approach. We have to strive at all times to be ready for whatever eventuality will arise. The Prime Minister continued:
“For our part, in Government, it will mean increased expenditure on equipment, personnel and the conditions of our Armed Forces; not in the short run but for the long term”.
I would have preferred to hear that statement at the start of his term of office and not on his farewell tour.
The current situation is no secret and is known to the House. Obviously, there are challenges for the RAF and the Royal Navy, but I shall concentrate on the Army. We have 39 battalions in the Army, only two of which are at full strength and 37 under strength. Last June, the Minister said in a debate in this House that recruitment was good and retention was satisfactory. I would be very interested to hear the current situation. In welcoming the recent pay settlement for our Armed Forces, I suspect that that sort of settlement does not come out of the Treasury
15 Mar 2007 : Column 834
I do not know how many of your Lordships were here when the Minister repeated a Statement on troop withdrawal from Bosnia. The Minster will recall that he started by expressing his condolences to Rifleman Coffeyof the 2nd Battalion of the Rifles. What hit your Lordships at the time was the realisation that here was a young man who had been a trained soldier for barely a year, who was on his second tour in Afghanistan, already having done a seven-month tour—longer than the intended six months. He sadly lost his life on a second tour that he had been asked to volunteer for because of a shortage of trained troops.
Recently in the other place a Question was asked about the Government’s definition of overstretch. The Answer given by Mr Adam Ingram was that overstretch would be if the Army was unable to fulfil the tasks asked of it. That is a very limited interpretation of overstretch. The Armed Forces are outstandingly good at taking on and meeting the immediate challenge of the moment—that is one of the challenges that they face. The duty of Government and Parliament is to see not just whether they are able to fulfil the tasks asked of them at this moment but whether they are going to be able to fulfil those tasks in two, three or five years’ time. That is my reason for raising this debate.
Obviously the pay settlement is an attempt to help with retention and recruitment problems. There are morale issues; recently there has been much publicity about medical facilities. I do not wish to go over that in detail but other Members may wish to. It was mentioned in the other place yesterday by the Prime Minister. We face the challenge of a much tougher combat environment than was expected, and the number of casualties is rising. The Minister may like to comment on the number of wounded who are now facing the kind of issues found in the Walter Reed Hospital, which led to the sacking of the US Army Secretary and the Surgeon-General. It was stated that they were overwhelmed by the number of casualties coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq. I do not know to what extent we are able to cope with the numbers that we are incurring.
Other issues affect morale and retention. I live not far from the Lyneham airbase. A recent issue of the local paper, the Wiltshire Gazette, under the heading “How Many More Men Must Die?” stated:
This refers to damage due to the lack of fire-suppressant foam in the Hercules aircraft that are used—or are not, I hope, now being used—for airbridge activities. That sort of article can be damaging. It was written by a former Hercules pilot, expressing his concern about the lack of proper equipment. Why are all the planes that the Americans have flying in the war zone properly protected? Why
15 Mar 2007 : Column 835
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |